There were no ‘issues’ with baggage loading. ALG is right on the limit of performance of the LGW airbuses, so it just couldn’t make it there with a full load of pax and bags - they took the decision to fly the pax and leave the bags. It’s not the first time this has happened. Typically if loads were light the rest of the week they’d reflight the bags as and when, but subsequent flights were also busy so they sent the bags on a separate flight.

Note that there was no chartering in a new aircraft, they just sent one of their own down with no pax. The alternative would have been to run a 777 on the regular flight the next day, so presumably none was available.

There are 2 problems with this particular route that regularly crop up.

1) A full passenger load with a high hold luggage uptake puts the aircraft right on the limit of its maximum authorised zero fuel weight (61 tonnes). This limit is set by the manufacturer to limit the stress on the wing root.

2) The ‘relatively’ distant alternate airport (Palma De Mallorca) means the aircraft has to be planned to land in Algiers with this diversion fuel in the wings. Coupled with the high weights mentioned in point 1), this puts the aircraft right on the maximum landing weight limit (64.5 tonnes).

Other examples you use for longer flights would normally be affected by the maximum takeoff weight before or in addition to the points above.

I hope that helps explain things a bit better. As for solutions....well. There are 3 I can think of.

1) G-GATU - this has a slightly higher MZFW limit so perhaps could be prioritised on this route? However it is still restricted by the MLW which is the same as her sister aircraft. The LHR densified sharklet aircraft have higher MTOW and MLW limits but of course are exclusively at LHR.

2) NEOs. Lower fuel burn leads to less fuel carried for the trip and the alternate plus they have slightly higher weight limits too. Of course these are exclusively at LHR too!

3) Load cap the flights. However this leads to lost revenue every time the flights go with available weight unused.

Regards,
Champ

Hi Karfa,

No easy answer but I think FNC probably has a higher club load in general which reduces weights slightly. I’m not sure but I’d be surprised if we carried freight on FNC whereas ALG we may well do (although not at the expense of passenger bags). I had a look at today’s FNC and the alternate was actually listed as PXO (Porto Santo). Obviously it’s up to the Captain whether he/she loads extra fuel for OPO, FAO or LIS or for general hanging around. Using today’s flight as an example, it seemed fairly full but changing the alternate to FAO or LIS would’ve added about 2.4 tonnes more fuel which would’ve taken it close to maximum landing weight.

So in other words, FNC is not immune but Algiers can have a very high payload compared to normal BA short haul routes.

champ

You’re probably right but it’s an (educated) guessing game. Most of the flights are ok weight-wise. When you get a specific set of factors go against you with bags rolling from one day to the next then it’s hard to clear the backlog. I’m sure BA will be looking at what the best steps are in the future to avoid having to do this in the future whilst maximising revenue.

champ

Luggage is quite regularly left behind on this and RAK flights. Around 40 bags didn’t make this particular flight. Both routes suffer with passengers wanting to check in LOTS of bags.

Without wanting to break cover immediately, I have quite a lot of experience on these routes. With regards Algiers it is almost never the weights that are the problem. The diversion really is not that far, and you have a choice of Palma, Ibiza or Mahon. The Take-off weights of the Gatwick Airbii have always been higher (and still are) compaired to any Heathrow Airbus. This is true for both A319 and A320, due to the longer stage lengths. For those interested BA and most other airlines artificially reduce maximum weights to reduce overflight charges etc. Ryanair I heard once used to go so far as changing them for every flight! The problem with Algiers is always simply the size of the hold. The A320 hold size is quite limited and although the Gatwick ones are mostly bulk loaded, which allows a little more space, they can quickly fill up especially on African routes where many people take several bags. This happens every year, and has previously resulted in 777s being used for the occasional run if available. Marrakesh I have never had a problem with as there is normally more people on short breaks, but the performance out of Marrakesh can be more limited due to both the temperature and elevation of the airport.

With regards Funchal, due to the very long diversion it is always limited by the Maximum Landing Weight. The A319 is no longer on this route as you cannot take a full load of passengers and divert to mainland Portugal. Most of the time Porto Santo is the ‘planned diversion.’ Which is legal, but it takes a brave man to only take fuel for there. Funchal often seems to get unforecast wind from nowhere, I think it is to do with the island geography almost creating it’s own. This coupled with the long flight time makes it difficult to predict what weather you might find when you arrive. Porto Santo is a very small airport with basic approach aids and given the volume of traffic to Funchal, can fill up very quickly, I believe it has capacity for four aircraft. Most of the time the pilots unofficial operating policy was to plan to land at Funchal with the maximum landing weight. This gives one or two times around the hold, while keeping fuel for the mainland, if you need more you can keep fuel to divert to Tenerife and have slightly longer in the hold as it is a little closer. Given that by now you in the hold and next to Porto Santos at this point you have a very good idea of the weather there and can talk to them to see if they can accept you, potentially giving more fuel to keep holding or try an approach.

The A320 is a very capable aircraft, flown to the Canary Islands and previously Sharm-el-Sheikh, so Algiers is very far from the edge of it’s performance. Interestingly I have been on an Amsterdam before where there was not enough room in the hold! It all depends on how many bags, bikes, pushchairs, wheelchairs and cargo there is to go in.

Sorry for the long post, all views are of course my own and not that if my employer.